Brand Jury is a response to a number of disturbing marketing trends, including what we see as a deficiency in market transparency.  A lack of transparency is not always, by itself, a bad thing.  Indeed, some organizations require a level of secrecy in order to compete.  In those instances, the only parties damaged by corporate secrecy are competitors unable to develop strategies mitigating whatever is secretly being concocted.  Furthermore, companies who maintain a privacy shield but practice good faith and fair dealings in the marketplace arguably cause consumers little damage.  Ferrari is loathe to release the cost of manufacturing a $255,000 599 Fiorano, but drooling F-car aficionados want only the 12 cylinder's bella machina, regardless of the surcharge. 

But how should we, as a market, approach the cowled machinations of a smiling corporate facade?  Make no mistake: due diligence does not lead to transparency.  We burden the unwitting consumer with due diligence when we should instead demand greater transparency from manufacturers and retailers.

Understand that transparency is not based on full disclosure, but rather on honest disclosure.  For example, BestBuy achieves transparency when advertising a rebate-free $125 Lexmark printer/toner/printer cable package.  BestBuy, however, doesn't think it will sell $125 Lexmark printers when Office Depot is selling the same printer (sans toner and cable) for $25 after $50 mail-in-rebate.  And so they follow suit by under-delivering on the over-promises made in last Sunday's circular.  

The problem arises when the sham price is couched as an honest and affordable bargain.  The practice amounts to little more than a polished bait-and-switch tactic looped gracefully through a permanent contract law pinhole.  I feel dirty when I'm greased up by the plastic smile of these painted crystals profiting through feigned transparency, and I know I'm not alone.  Isn't it time we asserted ourselves and demanded respect from the cats grown fat from our feeding?          

Popularity: 49% [?]

And why not?  Both companies have mastered the art of delivering packages to customers, which naturally makes them good at selecting the item being sent, right? 

Obviously I made that up.  But I did it to make a point:  if most can agree that delivering a gift bears no relation to selecting the gift being sent, why do we transform into Optimus Tard when ad networks and firms make the same argument?  I can understand why Marvel Comics would fall for the ploy…its survival depends on living in a fantasy world of nuclear-green purple-pant-wearing ogres.  But Stan Lee's not the only guy to pick up what ad firms are laying down.  

One has to admire their guile:  they successfully pulled the wool over our collective eyeballs and made us focus on delivery instead of message. They tell us not only that they know exactly where to distribute an ad, but also the ad that should be distributed.   I don't know about you, but I don't want the c-level boy-officers at Adbright picking out "my" advertising.  Aren't they the ones responsible for the atrocious ad-graffiti splattered across MySpace? 

A firm may know where the hot demographic hangs out, but don't ever presume that they'll show up bearing gifts anyone wants.  They do occasionally snag a click, a fact they trumpet to prove their value and close you into an agreement.  Conveniently missing from the pitch is the fact that each instance of user interaction is a sham, stolen with irresistible (and non-existing) i-pod/ps3/laptop freebies launching the unfortunate few into the 9th ring of malspamspyware hell.

Stan my boy, you're better than that.  You created Spider-man and the X-men after connecting with and listening to your audience.  Do you think we would have equally relevant superheroes had you instead surveyed your printer or delivery guy?  It's doesn't take a Professor X to answer that one.

Popularity: 48% [?]

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan posted an interesting blog today titled A Google Brain Drain?  It's a great look into exactly why advertisers will want to become a part of Brand Jury, and I highly suggest you read it.  It will give you a strong perspective on advertiser motives and discontent with the status quo.

But let me first explain the advertiser-hook:  the chances of Brand Jury drawing a large advertising crowd are slim.  I doubt any more than 1% of all online advertisers will devote more than a cursory glance our way…at first.  But we're not concerned with the current advertising talent's opinion of us.  What we're doing is not solely for the benefit of advertisers, and the benefit we offer is too valuable for mainstream marketing to ignore.  We know that, in time, the advertisers will come because they have to.  

Arrogance?  Indeed, but not on my part.  What we are creating is the Napster of online marketing, and advertisers can either work with us ("us" being the collective web 2.0 community) or fall like Tower Records.  It's truly amazing to watch gigantic industry power-houses ignore and marginalize the pleading voices of their customer bases.  It's a testament to the idea that good business and big business don't mix well.  Tower isn't the only victim of the music industry's idiocy, but it is one of the most visible and it serves as a good warning to the powers that be:  you are beholden to your customers, even if you are their only option.  Satisfy them or stagnate as they abandon you for greener fields.

Brand Jury won't get any big guys on board for quite some time, but we'll get a ton of ma & pa operations who understand the basic idea of advertising:  attract customers.  And as these ma & pa businesses bloom from their newfound success, the larger fish in the pond will begin to nibble.  We know Brand Jury is one of the few true internet innovations, but our egos aren't big enough to claim that it alone will change the face of advertising.  Users like you and I will force advertisers to jump the curve, and Brand Jury is simply the hammer we'll bring down to make it happen.

Tomorrow I'll delve a little deeper into the tools Brand Jury provides for advertisers and users.  And don't be shy…if you like what you've read so far (or if you think we're half-baked), shoot us a note.  BrandJury@gmail.com  

Popularity: 57% [?]

Online advertisers want one thing:  to make an impression on as many eyeballs as possible.  Websites want two things:  compelling content and revenue-generating traffic.  Users want three things:  internet transparency, interesting content, and a way to customize their web. 

Most have given up hope that a vehicle exists that can deliver everything to everyone, resulting in over ten years of e-turf wars.  Websites reserve premier real estate for their content, relegating advertisers to sidebars and headers.  Advertisers play catch-up by distracting users away from content with unreal offers, annoying flash, and intrusive pop-ups.  Users grow tired of the juvenile marketing tactics and frequent websites less.  It's an ugly circle that consumes so much energy that little is left to analyze the possibility of satisfying all parties involved.

But there is a way to make everyone happy:  generate traffic by converting advertisements into compelling user-managed content .  The first question people ask us when we explain this is:  "Why will people come to your site to look at advertisements?"  The second question is often:  "Why will advertisers want to hand any control over to users?"

I'll answer question one first:  you're reading a blog about marketing and web 2.0…you are likely a user advanced enough to recognize how intrusive and offensive online marketing can be.  Like us, you ignore ads or are annoyed by them, and likely have no way to voice your distaste and frustration.  Aren't you insulted by the idea that you can control just about anything on the web, yet are completely shut-out of marketing decisions designed to take from your online experience?  Why should we allow advertisers to hold their noses high and declare mastery of our psyches? 

Blogs forced an ever-reluctant gaggle of network news executives to recognize the collective power of their audience, and there's no reason why advertisers shouldn't accept the same reality.

Instead of struggling to imagine who would visit a site like Brand Jury, ask yourself this:  would you visit a user-driven web 2.0 forum if, by doing so, you could force advertisers to abandon the status-quo in favor of ads forged by a net-wide focus group?  Finding the early-adopter-users may not be a breeze, but the internet is a big place with lots of people, nearly all of whom would much rather see advertisers take a genuinely friendly approach.

Check back tomorrow when we will post the answer to question two.

Popularity: 49% [?]

Indulge me for a moment.

The internet can be expressed as a mathematical formula:  Users (33%) + Content (33%) + Advertisers (33%) = The Web (100%)

Users provide the eyeballs that attract Advertisers; Advertisers spend the money that funds the Content; Content provides the entertainment attracting Users.  They all equally contribute to The Web, but all must advance individually to spur any advance in The Web. 

Blogs, social networks, media sharing, and other content-management platforms have advanced Content to Content 1.1, and increasingly savvy Users mastering content-management have evolved into Users 1.1.  Advertisers, on the other hand, still cannot effectively spend the money they dump into online marketing campaigns.  Projections indicate online advertising will reach $30 billion in 2008 on campaigns that, instead of enticing us, frustrate the hell out of us.  There are surely a number of online ad execs near a budgetary breaking-point, and I wouldn't put any faith in online marketing growth until Advertisers jump the curve. 

Right now, the true math looks like this:  Users 1.1 (33%) + Content 1.1 (33%) + Advertisers 1.0 (30%) =/=  Web 2.0 (97%)

Oh so close!  And once advertising makes the jump, sites will see a revenue boom which, in-turn, will fund development and inspire innovation.  Marketers are the catalyst for The Web's critical mass, but they'll continue to lag until they stop searching for the right messenger and instead perfect the message.      

By pure chance we stumbled across a solution so obvious that it was hiding in plain sight; Brand Jury is that solution.  We beat the e-marketing community because we're not part of it; we are Users 1.1, and we know there's a black swan in beta.  We love Web 1.1 because at the very least, it gives us stuff to do at the office, and we lament advertising's ugly effect on our online world.  We built BrandJury because we want The Web to shed its weathered skin and emerge a shinier, sleeker, and much much cooler Web 2.0.

So what is Brand Jury?  In short, it's a "web 2.0" site that seamlessly weaves advertisers into the experience, instead of rudely imposing themselves onto it.  Our ideas sail north while the rest of the fleet sails south, so you may need a couple of days to let our model sink in.  You'll likely want to know more, so stay tuned as we lay it out.

Popularity: 47% [?]